the great were corrected, others were introduced. The papal power, "Concilii quæ prima fuit, si quæris, origo, "Do you ask me how the council was begun, conducted, and terminated? I will tell. It began in nothing, and was conducted and finished in the same manner. Thus nothing sprang from nothing." Such are the sentiments entertained respecting the usefulness of the doings of this council. But though nothing was done efficiently to accomplish good or correct what was wrong, the doings of the council prepared the way for and gave rise to new enormities. They resulted in introducing a Jesuitism into the Church of Rome, from which it will never recover till blotted out of being. (9.) Finally, the confirmation of the council by the pope, considering the way in which it was done, will give us no high idea of its infallibility. Of the four legates who attended the council, none gave a personal account to the pope of what had passed during its sessions except Morane and Simoneta. The pope gave them several audiences, and caused it to be debated whether he should confirm the decisions of the council. The officers of the court of Rome opposed their confirmation, and some cardinals were of opinion that they should only confirm the decrees of faith, without mentioning those of reformation. The pope chose eight cardinals to advise him what to do in this conjuncture, to whom he afterward joined two others. One gave his opinion that the pope should confirm all the decrees of the council without restriction. One other was of the same mind, and was followed by several others. The pope next called together all the cardinals, and declared to them his approbation of the decrees on reformation, and finally he resolved to confirm the decrees without any reserve, which was accordingly done, not where the council was held, but at Rome, in the consistory, on the 26th of January, 1564.† In the bull of confirmation the pope declares that the design for calling the council was, "to extinguish heresies, correct manners, restore ecclesiastical discipline, and to procure the peace and unity of Christian people; that he, on coming to the pontificate, had continued that holy work begun by his predecessors, and that by his constant care he had at last brought it to perfection; that his legates left the council so much at liberty, that by his leave they had treated of things reserved to the holy see, and had made several decrees concerning the sacraments and other matters, to extirpate heresies, remove abuses, and reform manners; that every thing passed so unanimously in the Le Plat, vii, part 2, p. 389. See Cramp, p. 369. + Du Pin on sixteenth cent., b. iii, ch. 22, vol. iii, p. 647. council, that it was plain this was the Lord's doings. He commanded all prelates to cause the decrees of the council to be observed inviolably; he conjured the emperor, kings, princes, and republics, to assist the prelates in the execution and observation of these decrees, and not to permit opinions contrary to the holy doctrine of the council to get admittance into their states. He also forbid the publication or interpretation of the decrees by any one but himself, and appointed a congregation of cardinals to examine points of small importance, but to bring all matters of moment to the decision of the pope himself." Who can wonder that the edict of Nantz was revoked, when Roman Catholic kings are instructed NOT TO PERMIT doctrines contrary to the deci sions of the council to get admittance into their states? Surely this confirmation possesses characteristics not very favourable to an infallible decision.* 23. To conclude what we have to say on this point, we would remark that great diversity of opinion exists respecting the number of general councils. The Nestorians believe in the first two general councils, because the third condemned them. The Greeks allow of the first six or seven. The Church of England and many Protestants consent with the first four councils; the Church of Rome generally approve of the eighteen councils mentioned above, but they are divided respecting the ecumenical character of several others or parts of them. Our inference is, that amidst such diversity of sentiment, the character of general councils cannot stand high in its claims for the universal reception of mankind. If the foregoing observations on councils are taken into consideration, and the rules of Roman Catholics concerning their œcumenical character are examined and applied, very few will be their number. Baillyf gives the following rules: "1. That all the bishops of the Christian world should be called to the council. 2. That so many should be present as would be necessary to represent the various churches of the Christian world. 3. That the council should act freely, without constraint." Some say that the confirmation of the pope is necessary, while others are of a different opinion. Amidst such variety of sentiments, what firm foundation is there for resting the truth of doctrines on the decisions of those councils called general? VI. Of the AUTHORITY and INFALLIBILITY of general councils. 1. The authoritative decision of the creed of Pope Pius IV., received by all Romanists, is the following: "I likewise undoubtedly receive and profess all other things delivered, defined, and declared by the sacred canons and general councils and particularly by the holy Council of Trent. And I condemn, reject, and anathematize all things contrary thereto, and all heresies which the church has condemned, rejected, and anathematized." That general councils are infallible is maintained in the foregoing article of Pius's creed, and believed by Romanists generally. Some maintain that the confirmation of the pope is necessary to constitute infallibility; while others maintain that the decisions of councils are infallible whether confirmed by the pope or not. We quote the sentiments of some of those who insist that the decrees of a general council with the confirmation of the pope are infallible * Du Pin on sixteenth cent., b. iii, ch. 22, vol. iii, p. 647. + De Eccles., c. 8, vol. ii, p. 403. Ferraris says, "The definitions of a general council legitimately assembled, issued in the absence of the pope, are not infallible without his confirmation." Cardinal Cusanus declares that "the pope gives authority to the council." Denst teaches as follows: "That general councils without the approbation of the pope are fallible-that the confirmation of the pope to any particular decrees of a council, impart to these decrees plenary authority-that general councils approved by the pope cannot err in defining matters of faith and morals, is an article of faith, hence they are to be considered as manifest heretics who presume to call in question what is decreed by such councils." Dens believes that the decisions of particular councils, confirmed by the pope, are also infallible, and that this is founded on the infallibility of the pope. But Benedict XIV. thinks that the decisions of such councils are binding only in their own provinces or diocesses.|| Many Romanists, however, maintain strongly that the decisions of general councils are infallible, without the pope's confirmation. It would be endless were we to quote the authorities on both sides. They are generally, however, agreed that what they call general councils are infallible; as some believe them infallible because they are general councils; while others believe the same thing, and add the confirmation of the pope as a necessary part of the authoritative character of the councils. Against the infallibility of councils we produce the following argu ments: 2. There are so many questions to be answered and so many difficulties to be obviated respecting general councils, that the utmost uncertainty is connected with their decisions, and therefore their infallibility is strikingly uncertain. There are so many points to be settled concerning the efficient, the form, the matter of general councils, their manner of proceeding, their final issue, that after a question is determined by a conciliary assembly, there are perhaps twenty more questions to be solved before we can receive the decisions of the council. How easy is it to elude the pressure of an argument drawn from the question of the pope's or council's superiority. And although it be defined for the council against the pope by the five general councils, of Florence, Constance, Basil, Pisa, and one Lateran; yet the Jesuits to this day account this question as undecided, and furnish many pleas for their sentiment. As, when they acknowledge that a council is above a pope when there is no pope, or it is uncertain who he is; which is Bellarmine's answer, not considering that the Council of Basil deposed Eugenius, who was a true pope, and acknowledged as such. They say that the popes did not always confirm the decrees of Basil. But this is an exception which the fathers never thought of, when they were pressed with the authority of the Council of Ariminum, or Sirmium, or any other Arian council. Yet the Council of Basil was convened by Pope Martin V.; next, in its sixteenth session, declared by * Definitiones universalis concilii etiam legitime congregati editæ absente Romano pontifice, non sunt infallibiles sine ipsius papæ confirmatione.-Ferraris, Biblioth. in Concilium, art. i, No. 66. + Summus pontifex confirmat tamquam auctoritatem probens concilio.—Cusanus, lib. iii, c. 15, de Concord. Cathol. See Ferraris as above, No. 65. De Ecclesia, No. 89. Dens as above, No. 89. || Bened. XIV. de Synodo, tom. iii, p. 287–290, c. 3, Mechl. Eugenius IV. to be lawfully continued, and confirmed expressly in some of its decrees by Pope Nicholas, and so stood, till it was at last rejected by Leo X., many years after. Now if one pope confirm it and another reject it, as it happened in this case and many more, does it not destroy the competency of the authority? Another evasion is on the word conciliariter, in a council-like manner. The decrees of the Council of Constance were confirmed by Martin V. But Bellarmine tells us he only confirmed those things "which were done in a conciliar manner, the thing being diligently examined." Quæ facta fuerant concilialiter, re diligenter examinatâ. And as there was no certain rule to judge of this matter, what was done conciliariter, may have been done in almost any manner the performer thought fit. Some councils, as one of the Laterans, is made general or not, to suit their convenience. The Council of Pisa is neither approved nor disapproved. Their doctrine of intention presents another source of uncertainty. For it is uncertain whether the bishops and pope were lawfully baptized and ordained, that is, whether the intention of the administrators was such as to confer the sacraments. Unless the council proceeded lawfully, it may not be infallible. So Bellarmine says, "That a lawful council may err, in case it doth not proceed lawfully."* If one or a few sway the rest, can it be said that the Spirit of God governed the council? Especially if one preside and control the rest, and these are bound implicitly to obey him; who can then expect that freedom which is requisite to a general council? The Councils of Ariminum and Seleucia are condemned, because some controlled the others, and by their subtlety persuaded them to subscribe that confession of faith which Pope Liberius subscribed. And if so great a council as this must be reprobated on that account, why not all others where the same arts are used? And should we have the assurance that the proceedings of the council were lawful, another difficulty arises from the meaning of the decrees. For they are as liable to as many interpretations as other writings are. If the Scriptures cannot put an end to controversies on that account, how can general councils do it, when their decrees are as liable to a private sense and wrong interpretation as the Scriptures are? Nay, the interpretation of the Scriptures has the advantage; for in them we have many other places to compare, the help of original tongues, the consent of the primitive church. But the decrees of councils are purposely framed in general terms, and with ambiguous expressions, to suit some party in the church and council. Disputes have been raised concerning the decrees of the Council of Trent, about which the several parties neither are, nor are like to be agreed. And though the pope appointed a committee or congregation to explain the decrees of this council, their vagueness remains nevertheless. If we consider the rules by which the true and uncertain councils are distinguished, and what part of the decisions of one council is to be received and what rejected, additional uncertainty is presented. Denst adopts the following from Estius: "All things which are expressed in any manner in the decrees of councils are not to be received as definitions, but those things only to which the intention of the *Bel. de Concil, lib. ii, c. 7. † De Eccles., No. 89. ordainers or definers was properly directed. But this is known only from the circumstances of things, and the causes or occasions of making the decrees."* Dens, also, adopts the following rules of Melchior Canus,† by which, he says, the definitions of a council pertaining to faith may easily be distinguished: "1. If those who assert the contrary are judged as heretics. "2. When the synod expresses its decisions according to this form, 'If any one shall assert this or that, let him be accursed.' "3. If the sentence of excommunication is rightly pronounced against those who contradict the decree." The application of the foregoing regulations in judging of the true and false councils, and of the true and false decisions of the same councils, will present insuperable difficulties to the minds of sober persons. And yet these are the rules which their famous divines, Estius, Canus, Dens, and others, furnish, in order to ascertain the proper character of councils and their decisions. It were endless to go through all the questions which the candid inquirer will make respecting councils. He must begin and examine what makes a general council; whether all the bishops must be present in person or proxy; what share the princes and laity are to have in councils. It is to be inquired whether a general citation is enough to make the council general, were the number of bishops ever so small at their first opening. It is next to be considered whether deputies may have seats there; or if the votes are to be reckoned according to the number of bishops, or those who send them. And whether nations should vote apart, or every bishop individually. Whether the decisions of councils must be unanimous, before they can be esteemed infallible. These are only a part of the questions which affect the infallibility of councils. 3. The discordant sentiments of Romanists respecting those characteristics of general councils necessary to constitute infallibility furnish a strong argument against the inerrancy of councils. The four following opinions were strongly held by those of the Church of Rome: 1. Some asserted that the diffusive, and not the representative body of the church possessed infallibility. So Occam, Petrus de Aliaco, Cusanus, Antoninus of Florence, Panormitan, Nicholas de Clemangis, Franciscus Mirandula, and others, were of this opinion.‡ 2. Some say that councils are no farther infallible than as they adhere to Scripture and universal tradition. 3. Some say that councils are of themselves infallible, whether the pope confirm them or not. This was the common opinion before the Council of Lateran, under Leo X., as appears from the Councils of Basil and Constance. 4. Others make the pope's confirmation necessary to the infallibility of a general council. There is an irreconcilable difference between the last two opinions. For those who make councils infallible without the confirmation of the pope, believe councils to be above the pope, and that the pope is fallible; while those who are of the opinion that the confirmation of the + Locis Theol., lib. v, c. 5, q. 4. Estius, lib. ii. Sent. dist. 17, sec. 6. See references to these in Stillingfleet's Grounds, p. 509. |